ransportation Case Digest: Isaac V. A.L. Ammen Trans. Co.

(1957)
G.R.No. L-9671 August 23, 1957
Lessons Applicable: Legal Effect (Transportation)

FACTS:
May 31, 1951: Cesar Isaac boarded Bus No. 31 from Ligao, Albay bound for Pili, Camarines
Sur and seated himself on the left side resting his left arm on the window sill but with his left
elbow outside the window
Before reaching his destination, a pick-up car at full speed and was running outside of its
proper lane came from the opposite direction
The driver of the bus swerved the bus to the very extreme right of the road until its front and
rear wheels have gone over the pile of stones or gravel situated on the rampart of the road.
The bus could not bus farther right and run over a greater portion of the pile of gravel, the
peak of which was about 3 feet high, without endangering the safety of his passengers.
Despite efforts, the rear left side of the bus was hit by the pick-up car
He was rushed to a hospital in Iriga, Camarines Sur where he was given blood transfusion to
save his life
After 4 days, he was transferred to another hospital in Tabaco, Albay, where he under went
treatment for 3 months
Later, he was moved to the Orthopedic Hospital where he was operated on and stayed for
another 2 months.
He incurred expenses of P623.40, excluding medical fees which were paid by A.L. Ammen
Trans. Co.
Trial Court: Dismissed the complaint - collision occurred due to the negligence of the driver
of the pick-up car
ISSUE: W/N if there is no negligence on the part of the common carrier but that the accident
resulting in injuries is due to causes which are inevitable and which could not have been avoided
or anticipated notwithstanding the exercise of that high degree of care and skill which the carrier is
bound to exercise for the safety of his passengers neither the common carrier nor the driver is
liable therefor

HELD: YES. Appealed decision is AFFIRMED.

ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy,
are bound to observe extra ordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of
the passengers transported by them according to all the circumstances of each case.

Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in articles 1734,
1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers
is further set forth in articles 1755 and 1756 Ooom.

ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for
all the circumstances.

ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.

principles governing the liability of a common carrier:

1.
the liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its obligation. There is
breach if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances of each case
2. a carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with the utmost diligence of a very cautious
person, having due regard for all the circumstances
3. a carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted negligently in case of death of, or injury
to, passengers, it being its duty to prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence
4. the carrier is not an insurer against all risks of travel
where a carrier's employee is confronted with a sudden emergency, the fact that he is obliged
to act quickly and without a chance for deliberation must be taken into account, and he is held
to the some degree of care that he would otherwise be required to exercise in the absence of
such emergency but must exercise only such care as any ordinary prudent person would
exercise under like circumstances and conditions, and the failure on his part to exercise the
best judgment the case renders possible does not establish lack of care and skill on his part
Considering all the circumstances, we are persuaded to conclude that the driver of the bus has
done what a prudent man could have done to avoid the collision
 It is true that Isaac's contributory negligence cannot relieve A.L. Ammen of its liability but
will only entitle it to a reduction of the amount of damage caused (Article 1762, new Civil
Code), but this is a circumstance which further militates against the position taken by Isaac